In a letter to the secretary-general the following day, then-U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said the United States had determined that the nerve agent sarin was used in the March 19 attack on Khan al-Assal and also in an April 13 attack on the Aleppo neighborhood of Shaykh Maqsud. She said unspecified chemicals, possibly including chemical warfare agents, were used May 14 in an attack on Qasr Abu Samrah and in a May 23 attack on Adra.

sno man:Weaver95: I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria. If I were anyone living in the middle east I'd think the us is nuts. Well armed and very hypocritical too...but mostly insane. This makes no sense to me.

It's your habit of drawing lines in the sand. Eventually when those lines keep getting crossed you have to do something, or no one will take you seriously. Not that many do in that region anyway...

J. Frank Parnell:TheShavingofOccam123: The battle for mainland Japan would have lasted 68 years, killed 76,000,000 people with 3600 destroyers sunk and 231,936 aircraft destroyed.* That's why the little bomb we dropped on Hiroshima was invented.

Yeah, i know that's what they teach in US schools now.

Lets see what everyone directly involved at the time had to say.

How about FDR before we even entered the war:

On September 1, 1939 - the first day of World War II in Europe - President Franklin D. Roosevelt appealed to the warring nations to "under no circumstances undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations."

Curtis LeMay humanely incinerated millions of Japanese civilians long before the atomic bombs were dropped.

Harry Truman served in the trenches in World War I. He understood what protracted long wars of attrition can cost everyone involved.

TheShavingofOccam123:On September 1, 1939 - the first day of World War II in Europe - President Franklin D. Roosevelt appealed to the warring nations to "under no circumstances undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations."

Lots of allies all set up and then someone went and did something stupid?

That has nothing to do with the current situation.

1. There are two sets of allies involved: NATO and Iran-Syria. Iran and Syria are pathetically weak militarily, compared to NATO.2. Russia and Iran aren't allies. Neither are Syria and Russia. Russia has an interest in Syria, but no mutual defense pact.

Just as when Israel hit Russian missiles in Syria recently, or when the U.shiat Iraq a zillion times with missiles in the '90s, or when the U.shiat Afghanistan with missiles in the '90s, there will be no geopolitical consequences to the U.shiatting Syria with missiles. Zip, nada, nil. I'm not sure how much good it might do, but there's no real potential for blowback, especially if the whole of NATO and the EU is behind it.

Dr Dreidel:The reason for the US to strike Syria is so that Israel doesn't.

1) If the US bombs Syria, what can they do? Conventional warfare from 6000 miles away? A suicide bomb at an embassy (resulting in MORE drones a-flyin')? If Israel bombs Syria, it'd make the Second Intifada look like a lame frat party.2) If Israel attacks, they'll be far less restrained than the US. We'd send some cruise missiles and a few drones; Israel would roll tanks and flatten enough area for a DMZ (if not worse).3) If Israel is the aggressor, the response would definitely come from Syria, Iran, Hezbollah-controlled areas of Lebanon... If the US is the aggressor, Syria's probably on their own, with maybe some equipment from China/Russia and rhetoric from Iran (possibly some light insurgency sourced to them, like Pakistanis in Afghanistan).

Lots of allies all set up and then someone went and did something stupid?

That has nothing to do with the current situation.

1. There are two sets of allies involved: NATO and Iran-Syria. Iran and Syria are pathetically weak militarily, compared to NATO.2. Russia and Iran aren't allies. Neither are Syria and Russia. Russia has an interest in Syria, but no mutual defense pact.

Just as when Israel hit Russian missiles in Syria recently, or when the U.shiat Iraq a zillion times with missiles in the '90s, or when the U.shiat Afghanistan with missiles in the '90s, there will be no geopolitical consequences to the U.shiatting Syria with missiles. Zip, nada, nil. I'm not sure how much good it might do, but there's no real potential for blowback, especially if the whole of NATO and the EU is behind it.

Spare Me:TheShavingofOccam123: Spare Me: If you're tired of the wars, go for Rand Paul in 2016.

A race war is a war. It's not a NASCAR event.

That's a dumb comment. I guess you like all the wars then. I prefer someone who actually values and follows the Constitution, but that's just me I guess.

Yeah, values the Constitution. Except for the Interstate Commerce clause, the 4th Amendment, the 14th Amendment and the 16th Amendment. When I'm looking for a constitutional scholar, I always go to the shakily credentialed ophthalmologist first.

There was some asshat on the news today saying that american can't be an isolationist nation in this because the last time we did that WW1 and WW2 happend. I wanted to choke him. Let the Syrians kill themselves if it expands outside of their boarders, then we should probably step in.

That's a dumb comment. I guess you like all the wars then. I prefer someone who actually values and follows the Constitution, but that's just me I guess.

Yeah, values the Constitution. Except for the Interstate Commerce clause, the 4th Amendment, the 14th Amendment and the 16th Amendment. When I'm looking for a constitutional scholar, I always go to the shakily credentialed ophthalmologist first.

Yes, let's focus on an early statement about something that will never be changed rather than worrying about real live people getting killed today.

groppet:There was some asshat on the news today saying that american can't be an isolationist nation in this because the last time we did that WW1 and WW2 happend. I wanted to choke him. Let the Syrians kill themselves if it expands outside of their boarders, then we should probably step in.

Christ. So not wanting to intervene in a nation's internal affairs is isolationist now? What retard said that?

J. Frank Parnell:TheShavingofOccam123: The battle for mainland Japan would have lasted 68 years, killed 76,000,000 people with 3600 destroyers sunk and 231,936 aircraft destroyed.* That's why the little bomb we dropped on Hiroshima was invented.

Yeah, i know that's what they teach in US schools now.

Lets see what everyone directly involved at the time had to say.

Out of your list only two of those people had privy to the ultra intercepts regarding Japan's tactical situation and the communication between Foreign Minister Togo and the Japanese Ambassador in Moscow Sato. Leahy and MacArthur.

Leahy was still pissed the USN was not allowed to blockade Japan into submission. He was further pissed that the USN did not have sole control over nuclear weapons along with the post war air force getting a ton of funding.

MacArthur was borderline paranoid. The Ultra intercepts showed the Japanese had twice the strength on Kyushu than expected for the November invasion. Post war records show three times as many opposition expected for operation Olympic. Mac chose to ignore the intelligence since he wanted his invasion. (also see Chinese entrance to Korean War).

If you read the actual transcripts between Togo and Sato it is clear that Japan was not ready to surrender. As to the claims they wanted to surrender, yes they did, on their terms. They wanted to keep Korea, Manchuria, no American occupation, no war crimes, and keep the emperor not just as a figure head, but as an imperial leader along with the current regime. No democratic elections.

The thumbnail sketch above is based on classified intercepts that were not released until the late 1970's and ongoing until the 1990's. That's why it was never mentioned in Truman's autobiography or mentioned by Admiral King or General Marshal.

There was a conference slated where Admiral King was going to withdraw the Navy's approval for Operation Olympic based on Ultra and radio intercept intelligence. Marshall was probably going to agree with him and sort of leave MacArthur out to hang himself. But the Japanese surrendered so it all came to naught.

Last note....on some of the quotes thrown around the web. If you see any sourced by an author Gar Alperovitz just disregard them. His work have been discredited by modern historians. He was caught twisting and altering facts as well as truncating quotes. But he is still a left over star for the left.

Weaver95:I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria. If I were anyone living in the middle east I'd think the us is nuts. Well armed and very hypocritical too...but mostly insane. This makes no sense to me.

Maybe it's because Fartbongo knows the chemical weapons came from Iraq.

cameroncrazy1984:machoprogrammer: FormlessOne: Oh, boy! Another pointless war in the Middle East! WHOOO!

Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize to defend

Wouldn't you call the destruction of a government that uses WMDs on its own people a humanitarian effort?

You're gonna need:

- way better proof the orders to do this came from the Syrian regime- an excellent end game- to actually be defending what it sounds like the President is planning on doing, which is blowing some people up as a token gesture rather than implementing regime change

"A United Nations inquiry into human rights abuses in Syria has found evidence that rebel forces may have used chemical weapons, its lead investigator has revealed.

"Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said that testimony gathered from casualties and medical staff indicated that the nerve agent sarin was used by rebel fighters.

"Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Ms Del Ponte said in an interview broadcast on Swiss-Italian television on Sunday.

"This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added."

YixilTesiphon:cameroncrazy1984: machoprogrammer: FormlessOne: Oh, boy! Another pointless war in the Middle East! WHOOO!

Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize to defend

Wouldn't you call the destruction of a government that uses WMDs on its own people a humanitarian effort?

You're gonna need:

- way better proof the orders to do this came from the Syrian regime- an excellent end game- to actually be defending what it sounds like the President is planning on doing, which is blowing some people up as a token gesture rather than implementing regime change

Worked in Libya to implement regime change, didn't it? Didn't require 100,000 troops on the ground like Bush's stupidity.

Also it does appear that the US Government is working to prove that as we speak.

Wouldn't you call the destruction of a government that uses WMDs on its own people a humanitarian effort?

The word 'meddling' comes to mind, young man.We need to stay out of this one.

Why? Why are those gassed Syrians not worth our time and effort?

Because it is NONE OF OUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS.Why do you feel we need to be the conscience of the planet?You do realize we have not been asked to render assistance from anyone that has a right to do so, correct?We need to learn to mind our own business. Besides, we have work enough to do getting our shiat cleaned up before we go pointing fingers at other countries backyards.

The article concludes, based on interviews with leaders of groups like Code Pink and Peace Action, that Iraq-era anti-war groups are struggling with funding and membership and that enthusiasm for the cause has dissipated among lefty types with Barack Obama in office.

Looks like it's up to you contards. Cons holding an anti-war protest? LOL

sno man:Weaver95: I just don't understand why we seem to be gearing up to attack syria. If I were anyone living in the middle east I'd think the us is nuts. Well armed and very hypocritical too...but mostly insane. This makes no sense to me.

It's your habit of drawing lines in the sand. Eventually when those lines keep getting crossed you have to do something, or no one will take you seriously. Not that many do in that region anyway...

Seems to me a brilliant bit of parenting. Draw a line in the sand that says "you will not attack XYZ". When they cross it, saber rattle some and then draw a new line that says "you will not use chemical weapons" and when they cross it, saber rattle some more. Then draw a new line in the sand that says "you won't go to all out war with each other" and when they cross it, sit back and laugh hysterically.

Lots of allies all set up and then someone went and did something stupid?

That has nothing to do with the current situation.

1. There are two sets of allies involved: NATO and Iran-Syria. Iran and Syria are pathetically weak militarily, compared to NATO.2. Russia and Iran aren't allies. Neither are Syria and Russia. Russia has an interest in Syria, but no mutual defense pact.

Just as when Israel hit Russian missiles in Syria recently, or when the U.shiat Iraq a zillion times with missiles in the '90s, or when the U.shiat Afghanistan with missiles in the '90s, there will be no geopolitical consequences to the U.shiatting Syria with missiles. Zip, nada, nil. I'm not sure how much good it might do, but there's no real potential for blowback, especially if the whole of NATO and the EU is behind it.

As confrontation between the United States and Iran escalates, the country is finding itself further pushed into an alliance with China and Russia. And Iran, like Russia, "views Turkey's regional ambitions and the possible spread of some form of pan-Turkic ideology with suspicion"

bluorangefyre:I've come to the conclusion that Republicans unnecessarily beat the drum on action in Syria to lure the President in so that one of three things would happen:

1) They'd embarass him in front of the entire world2) They'd finally have an impeachable offense3) WWIII could be put on him

If the pres does bomb it is NOT an impeachable offense.Here is the proof,from the War Powers Act.

The Vietnam-era law requires the president to seek approval from Congress after 60 days of military engagement. The law was passed in 1973 after the United States fought the Korean and Vietnam wars without actual declarations of war. But it's always been controversial. (President Nixon actually vetoed the law, but Congress overrode him.)